Conservative Anti-Mormon Bias is Self-Defeating

If the adage is true that "statistics don't lie," then there is deeper bias in America against Mormons than there is against African-Americans or Jews. According to a Newsweek poll cited by Robert Novak in his latest Washington Post Column, "A Mormon in the White House?":

28 percent of Americans would not vote for any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- demonstrating much greater hostility than to a Jewish or African-American candidate. Mormonism is the only minority category toward which bias in America has deepened.

What do these poll results really mean? Is it the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that causes such prejudice? Is it the behavior of individual members of the LDS Church that convinces 28 percent of Americans that a member of that church should never be president? Considering that the poll question apparently did not single out Mitt Romney for scrutiny, the root cause of the bias runs deeper than personal or political dislike of Romney himself. 28 percent would not vote for "any member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."

You probably have a friend or neighbor who is a member of the LDS Church. From what you know of him or his family, would you withhold your vote from him if he were politically viable and urged to run for the presidency? If the answer is no, and you are a political conservative, what is the criteria on which you based your decision?

Was it the specter of polygamy, a topic favored by the media for its potential for stories of prurient interest? After all, in their recent titillating coverage of the capture of polygamist fugitive Warren Jeffs or conviction of a polygamist for "marrying" and raping his teenage cousin, very few news organizations bothered to explain to viewers or readers that neither of those men were in any way affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, better known as Mormon or LDS. The church officially outlawed the practice of polygamy in 1890, and had stopped preaching or encouraging the practice of it long before that date in accordance with the federal law prohibiting polygamy in U.S. Territories. The church excommunicates anyone who defies the national law and church doctrine by engaging in the practice of it.

The fugitive and convicted polygamists belong to what is known as the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which broke off of the original faith and established itself in sparse, rural areas of Southern Utah and parts of Arizona. These Fundamentalists are the only polygamists in Utah for nearly 120 years, but the news media never quite mention that fact in their stories. Even though there are no Mormon polygamists in Utah, the state is synonymous in the minds of many voters with polygamy.

Lumping together members of the LDS Church with the separate Fundamentalists is the equivalent of arguing that all scientists must be Scientologists simply because they share the same root word, science.

Perhaps your hesitation stemmed from skepticism about stories of gold plates containing writings of ancient prophets, or visions of angels and heavenly beings. It is interesting that anyone who believes in the bible would find such claims outrageous. I have never seen or touched any of the scrolls that biblical prophets and apostles wrote upon, but that does not invalidate for me the bible as a holy book of scripture. There are ample Biblical accounts of visions and appearances of heavenly beings, yet I do not believe them contrived or fictional.

Deepening voter bias against Mormons may actually represent something flattering about the LDS Church and its members. While family values and parental responsibility in American society steadily decline, the LDS Church emphasizes core conservative values clearly and concisely. While various religions adopt acceptance of open homosexuality and civil unions or gay marriages, the LDS Church encouraged its members to support amending the Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. While society becomes permissive of and celebrates promiscuity before and throughout marriage, the LDS Church teaches its youth to maintain their virtue and cherish chastity. Saving oneself for marriage is not a quaint, unrealistic, or old-fashioned notion to Mormons. While abortion has become an accepted method of birth control in society, the LDS Church operates LDS Family Services and advocates adoption and the sanctity of life.

Did you recognize genuine conservative ideology in these teachings? How about dedicating one evening each week exclusively for family activities? Encouraging members to donate charitable funds to temporarily care for the financial needs of struggling fellow members to keep them off of government welfare rolls? If conservatism is synonymous with self-reliance rather than government handouts, then Mormonism is synonymous with conservatism when it comes to finances and rugged individualism.

Conservatives like big ideas. Newt Gingrich was wildly successful leading the Republican revolution in 1994 because of the Contract with America, a document that clearly spelled out what conservatism stands for and what the Republican Congress would achieve if elected. Churches also at times set forth their teachings in clear public documents. In 1995, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints issued "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." In this document, the LDS Church clearly stated its positions on the divine nature of mankind, gay marriage, gender, abortion, chastity, preservation of the nuclear family, and the importance encouraging world governments to preserve the family as the central unit of society. If you are conservative, consider whether you would vote for a candidate with the following beliefs:

...marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

...We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

...We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God's eternal plan.

...Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities.

...we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

If bias in America is deepening against members of a church that unashamedly proclaims these decidedly conservative values, then we should be asking ourselves why. If conservatives would not vote for any LDS candidate for the presidency, then perhaps they are conservative in name only. Society is morally adrift and floating further out to sea at a faster pace than ever before. As the gulf between itself and the above teachings of the LDS Church grows ever wider, its animosity toward Mormons increases in equal proportions because society does not like to be told it is morally corrupt regardless of the messenger.

Thus, deepening bias against the LDS Church, in a sadly ironic way, may actually be a moral badge of honor for maligned Mormons. After all, African-Americans and Jews used to be the groups voters indicated they would not vote for, and yet both made marvelous contributions to and became integral parts of both political parties once bigotry took a back seat to shared ideology.


Technorati Tags:
LDS, Mormon, Mitt Romney, Religious Bias, Prejudice, Newsweek Polls, Robert Novak, Conservatism, Family Values

Conservatives Use Liberals to Justify Acts

Conservative reaction to two recent news stories raises a question that conservatives should consider very carefully: is liberalism really the behavioral standard by which we as conservatives want to be judged?

The old excuse that “everyone else is doing it” seems to have infected the reasoning of conservatives, who increasingly cite examples of liberal misbehavior to justify their own similar words or actions. Although it may not be fair for liberals to constantly get free passes in the MSM for what most of us would consider illegal or immoral conduct, conservatives should be willing to point out the hypocrisy while continuing to take the moral high road in their own behavior. That is, or at least that was, what separated conservatives from liberals on so many issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, political corruption, personal morality in elected officials, and others. Now conservatives seem no longer to care much about living up to a higher standard than our liberal rivals, but instead demonstrate that we wish we could behave badly too and receive the same free pass from the media that liberals enjoy.

In the following paragraphs I will reference two recent news stories and conservative reaction to them to illustrate the shamefully growing practice of wanting to be judged by liberal, rather than conservative standards:

1. President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s perjury conviction sentence.
Regular readers already know that Capital Cloak argued that since there was no underlying crime in the case, i.e. the outing of a CIA operative, there should have been no trial of Libby or anyone else. However, since a trial was held, Libby was convicted by a stacked DC liberal jury, and sentenced to prison time, President Bush commuted Libby’s sentence to a fine and probation. Liberals were, not surprisingly, outraged that their attempt to bring down the Bush administration through scandal fear mongering failed. Ironically, the Clinton’s criticized the president’s commutation decision, with Bill Clinton making this extremely hypocritical statement:

The former president tried to draw a distinction between the pardons he granted, and Bush's decision to commute Libby's 30-month sentence in the CIA leak case.

"I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted," Clinton told a radio interviewer Tuesday. "You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."

Of course, I am not suggesting that Bill Clinton was justified in issuing 140 pardons to many convicted criminals including his own business and political associates. Those pardons were wrong and certainly confirmed the stench of graft and corruption conservatives smelled for 8 years of the Clinton White House. However, instead of merely defending President Bush’s decision to rescue Libby by citing legal reasons or simply stating the president’s authority and perceived moral obligation to do so, the White House and conservative radio hosts and Internet bloggers took the moral low road by justifying the action based on Clinton’s numerous pardons:

"I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has scheduled hearings on Bush's commutation of Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence.

"Well, fine, knock himself out," Snow said of Conyers. "I mean, perfectly happy. And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?"

In the closing hours of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich.

Conservative radio hosts like Sean Hannity, though doing so for the noble purpose of defending the obviously railroaded Libby, also joined the “look what Clinton did” chorus, pointing to the already mentioned pardons as well as former President Clinton’s impeachment in the House for perjury which ultimately resulted in no removal from office, no jail time, no fines, only the later loss of his law license. Libby was sentenced to two years for the same crime that Clinton committed. Conservative media figures also pointed to other examples of Clinton administration officials who have thus far escaped prosecution, such as former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger. They pointed out that Berger committed a serious crime against national security by stealing classified documents from the National Archive, to which he plead guilty. Libby, who was convicted of perjury would serve jail time while Berger, who hamstrung the 9/11 commission by removing and destroying top secret documents dealing with the counterterrorism actions of the Clinton administration, only lost his law license, hardly a fair outcome and a clear double standard in punishments dealt in DC.

This argument successfully captured the understandable outrage of conservatives, and certainly by comparison Berger’s actions were far more serious than Libby’s, but by constantly holding out Clinton’s perjury, his last-minute pardons, and the treatment of Berger as an example, the White House and conservatives in the media contributed to the increasing trend of conservatives acting as if we wish to be judged by the loose moral and ethical standards afforded to liberals. If Libby’s commutation was legally and morally justified, as most conservatives agreed, why was it necessary to wallow in the mud with the Clintons and engage in childish and ultimately self-destructive “they did it and so can we” arguments?

Tony Snow’s snarky response quoted above was an unnecessary and atypical acceptance of the lowest common denominator in political judgment, the Clinton administration. Now conservatives are rallying to defend Congressman David Vitter (R-LA) who, when faced with a public outing by the madam of a highbrow DC brothel, confessed to his use of “services.” What is the most common conservative defense of Vitter? Clinton engaged in far more serious illicit behavior with a subordinate in the Oval Office itself and didn’t have to resign, so Vitter should not resign either! Is that really the moral high ground conservatives claim to occupy? Supporting his return to Congress because he was a good but flawed man would be one thing, but supporting him because Clinton got away with moral lapses sends a very different message to voters seeking to find some difference between the values of the two parties.

2. The arrest of Albert Gore III in California for DUI and narcotics possession.
Driving 100 mph is reckless and endangers the public. Driving 100 mph while under the influence of various controlled substances is incredibly irresponsible and inexcusable. This was not Al Gore III’s first DUI (two prior arrests), and it was widely reported that the young man had been abusing a number of prescription drugs. Clearly the former vice president’s only son has a substance abuse problem, possibly a parent’s worst nightmare. What was the “compassionate conservative” response to news of the incident? Few conservatives in the media extended to Gore or his son any sympathy or best wishes for a full recovery, yet many engaged in sarcastic jokes about the younger Gore’s environmental carbon footprint from driving 100 mph in a hybrid car. More plentiful were the admonitions that conservative radio hosts and callers had for the surely anguished father, chiding him for being, in their opinions, an irresponsible parent who spent more time on global warming than on his children.

I found it interesting that when some in the media asked rhetorically whether the children or families of public figures should be “fair game,” the overwhelming response from conservatives was to point out that the media had incessantly and viciously reported the Bush twins’ brushes with police for false id and underage drinking in their late high school and early college years, and so turnabout was fair play. Here is a brief sampling of conservative responses that were all too typical in the wake of headlines announcing Gore III’s arrest:

From Sweetness and Light
Doesn’t Algore have any problem with the fact that his son was burning the marijuana? Think of how much carbon dioxide got released… and is THC a greenhouse gas, anybody know? Now, take a look at the response to this from the same people who wanted to put the Bush twins in the stocks for drinking before they turned 21…..

Sad yes, doingwhatyoucan, but this is from a group who screams incessantly about how hypocritical and ‘holier-than-thou’ conservatives are and gleefully splay any and all faults, falls, and crimes (real and bogus) ad nauseum (and as 1st said, if it had been one of the Bush twins, breaking news alerts) - yet we hear barely a peep. And I for one had not known about his previous arrests. And therein lies the basic problem - the Bush twins drink at college (Gasp) and it is news for how many days?

Gore’s son is arrested (again) for speeding and drug possession - and nary a word is said. Sort of like Sandy’briefs’Burger and his non-punishment and yet Libby is drawn and quartered for a lie about a case that is utterly and completely based on a lie. Do As I Say - Not As I Do Liberals Strike Again. Sad, yes, deserved - absolutely.

From Hotair.com

Maybe instead of trying to save the UNIVERSE, AL GORE(the man who claims he invented the internet) should of stayed home more often.

A Crying shame. He might spend more time with his drug addicted son, or his celebrity seeking wife, or his addled brain.

The Eco-Messiah who wants to manage our environmental policy can’t even manage his own family.

From RedState

If any of the Bush or Cheney children were busted for drugs, speeding at 100mph right now, it would be front page news at both the New York Times and the Washington Post online.

College students Jenna and Barbara trying to sneak an alcoholic beverage was a huge scandal, but we're not supposed to question that Chelsea got a six-figure job to start out.

These were just a few examples from a mountain of such comments found on virtually all high-traffic conservative news sites. The comments made by callers to conservative radio in the wake of this story were of similar tone and content, with expressions of near-glee at the misfortune of the Gore family, in large measure because the media had been so quick and cruel to report the less legally serious misdeeds of the Bush twins. Certainly the media savaged the Bush twins for months after each incident, but conservatives should keep in mind that we loudly proclaim ourselves to represent family values, and showing a lack of sympathy for a family in crisis, as Gore’s clearly has been and continues to be, is unworthy behavior for “compassionate conservatism.” To adapt a scriptural warning to such behavior, “Nastiness never was happiness.”

If conservatives object to unfair media coverage of the family members of conservative public officials, how does salivating over stories about liberal families help resolve the issue? There is no question that great hypocrisy exists among liberals, their personal family issues, and the media responsible for news coverage. However, for conservatives there is nothing noble about wishing for others to suffer intense public scrutiny of painful personal matters simply because conservatives have also been victimized by the media.

Rather than wishing for equal media treatment with liberals when it comes to questionable behavior, conservatives should instead seek to live and uphold a higher behavioral standard than the one liberals aspire to. Conservatives should stand on principle instead of resorting to defending their actions or words based on what liberals have done in similar circumstances. If voters cannot detect a palpable difference between the two parties in 2008, they will likely side with the one that promises to represent the most significant change from the status quo. For conservatives hoping to hold onto the WH and regain the House and Senate, being different, rather than indistinguishable from, their opponents will be critical to potential victory.

Technorati Tags:
Scooter Libby, Bill Clinton, Presidential Pardons, Perjury, Sandy Berger, Conservatives, Liberals, Al Gore III, DUI, Media Double Standard, David Vitter

US Replaced As Family Values Champion

Many potential conservative voters are less than inspired by the current field of presidential candidates claiming to represent their values. Many are mysteriously enamored of Fred Thompson’s possible candidacy, although a careful examination of his abortion views should make him no more appealing than avowed pro-choice candidate Rudy Giuliani. However, through its recent reports from the World Congress of Families conference held in Warsaw, Poland, World Net Daily inadvertently identified a leader who sets a high standard in defending traditional families, marriage, and national morality. Unfortunately, that leader is not eligible to hold office in America due to a slight technicality: he is Roman Giertych, Deputy Prime Minister of Poland. By all accounts he is busy doing a much better job of preserving family values in his country than any American politician can claim to be doing here.

The disintegration of the former Soviet Union and the release of Communism’s grip over Eastern Europe produced amazing results. The embrace of democracy in the Czech Republic and Poland in particular, has shifted power and alliances away from Russia into the welcoming arms of Western Europe and America. Russia now fears having two staunch American allies on its borders and continues to threaten the Czechs and Poles if either installs American anti-ballistic missile defense systems over Russia’s objection. To their credit, the Czech Republic and Poland have stood firm in the face of Russia’s threats. Neither country is intimidated by a loud powerful bully, or willing to blink in the stare down with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

One of the unexpected consequences of freedom and democracy in Poland is that these forces appear to have led to a new international ally for American and European conservatives in the fight for preservation of the family and traditional marriage, two pillars of human society currently under relentless assault from gay rights groups and their willing liberal accomplices. Just as the Poles stand firm against the Russians on ballistic missile defense, they are similarly holding the line as Europe’s primary bulwark against immorality in its various forms, particularly the growing acceptance of the “homosexual agenda” and pervasive pornography.

Tthe World Congress of Families recently held its conference in Warsaw, and as Europe and America increasingly quiver before the loud (but tiny) minority who clamor for gay marriage and liberal moral policies, WND reported that the Polish government is moving to ban what it perceives as homosexual propaganda from its schools, restrict circulation of pornography, and promote traditional family structures (a husband, wife and children) as “the hope for the entire world.” The Polish family values platform resembles in spirit and theory many GOP campaign slogans and stump speeches to conservative Christian audiences, with one notable exception: Polish government officials are actually legislating the rhetoric into reality, while America’s government and presidential candidates continue to “cut and run” whenever faced with the prospect of offending the gay rights lobby.

The following are a few choice statements on morality offered by Polish Deputy Prime Minister Roman Giertych, who also serves as Minister of Education. Imagine (if you can) any American politician courageously expressing these views:

"Pornography is evil; it is an evil that touches the family and threatens the development of young people," the deputy prime minister said. "Its circulation should be treated as a crime, because it ruins what is most virtuous in a human being."

Giertych, whose father and grandfather were prominent Polish politicians, says Poland is threatened by "various ideologies … that have nothing to do with the well-being of children, that promote attitudes which are not true to life."

"This world of permissiveness, of certain attitudes which promote homosexuality, which promote pornography, this world is coming to an end, because our civilization is built on virtues, on Roman law … on the Decalogue," said Giertych, according to an English interpretation. "This civilization has great strength for rebirth. The rebirth will take place in the family, not only in Europe, but in the entire world."

"Please don't let people shut you down," he said. "Please don't be convinced that others who are promoting lies are telling the truth. The truth is on our side."

"Let's never accept mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy," he said. "There is only one truth."

The Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks on abortion were equally compelling and forthright:

The world will never be free from dangers threatening the family, he said, if there are no rights in place protecting life from the very beginning until natural death.

"Today we need a great charter for the rights of the family and nations that defines the right to life, that would define abortion as murder," Giertych told the World Congress delegates. "Whether three months old or three months before birth, whether 60 or 90 years old, murder is always murder. It is always a crime."

Perhaps the best indication that the Polish government is bravely holding to traditional family values while the rest of Europe discards them comes from the angry reactions of gay rights groups. Robert Biedron, president of the Polish gay rights group Campaign Against Homophobia, lamented, “Poland is like an island drifting away from the rest of Europe.” Giertych is depicted on homosexual web sites as another Hitler, including nasty cartoons, superimposed photos, and headlines decrying him as a fascist, the same tactics employed against family values advocates in America. While Poland’s government often stands alone, mocked as homophobic or extremist by the rest of Europe, that will not prevent its leaders from continuing to legislate for and speak on behalf of what in America would be called “mainstream family values.”

Unlike America’s politicians, the Poles are not intimidated by organized bullying or labeling from small internal lobbyists or interest groups or the behemoth European Union government. After all, throughout Poland’s history, it has fought against impossible odds and bested its enemies, even when it took decades to achieve victory. WND interviewed Robert Knight of the Media Research Center, an organization dedicated to defending the family as an institution, who attended the World Congress of Families meetings in Warsaw. Knight made it clear that his group and all family-friendly organizations are and should be inspired by Poland’s willingness to stand alone while the European Union promotes abortion, homosexuality, and pornography. According to Knight:

"We have taken our courage in what the Poles are doing," he said. "This is a nation that has suffered enormously over many decades. First from Nazism and then communism. They're a tough bunch of people who appear to have the strength to resist especially the homosexual agenda.

"If you've been victim of communists and Nazis, you're not going to run in fright from the forces from San Francisco."

In Poland “political correctness” is trumped by moral correctness and its people vote accordingly. They have not yet accepted the destructive and fallacious belief that simply because a practice exists in society, concessions should be offered to placate those who engage in it, such as abortion or homosexuality. They have not yet given up their religious conviction that right and wrong do exist and can be readily identified and labeled appropriately. It was not foreseen that Poland, hidden behind the iron curtain for so long, would emerge as the world’s most outspoken and active advocate of the traditional family, marriage, the pro-life movement, and moral clarity on the evils of pornography. It is to America’s condemnation that international moral leadership on such issues does not come from America.

It speaks volumes that none of the current candidates for the 2008 presidential election have a resume on family values issues that would be acceptable to Polish voters. That their resumes are acceptable to American voters demonstrates that America has drifted along with Europe into the sea of secularism and it is steadily allowing itself to be influenced by cultural currents determined to pull it further away from Poland, the island stronghold of moral sanity.